The governor’s short memory seems to be at it again. In a recent story in the Democrat and Chronicle, he asserted that he could not understand the concerns of citizens in over 50 counties in New York that his SAFE Act registration scheme would lead to confiscation, arguing that pistols are registered all the time without incident.

Is he forgetting his Dec. 20 statements that “confiscation could be an option, mandatory sale to the state could be an option?” How about the original list of SAFE Act proposals, which did include the confiscation of so-called “assault weapons,” as well as magazines and relabeling certain shotguns as “assault weapons?” Or his assertion that pro-Second Amendment citizens have “no place in the state of New York?”

Registration is viewed with skepticism not because we have pistol permits but because confiscation of scary looking firearms seems to be all Governor Cuomo can think about.

Chas Belfield, Chili

Fears of confiscation well founded

Gov. Andrew Cuomo states that gun owners’ fears of confiscation after registration are unfounded.

Why the, shortly after the seven-round limit was forced upon New York, did the New York City police department start sending notices to registered gun owners who had long guns with a five-round or more capacity?

Why then in a Dec 20., 2012, New York Times article did Mr. Cuomo state, “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it”?

Why then, did Assemblyman Steven F. McLaughlin say during debates over the controversial SAFE Act that it was clear confiscation was a primary goal?

Why then, in the 1990s did California confiscate all SKS rifles (the SKS is the predecessor to the AK-47) shortly after requiring they be registered?

Why then did police confiscate all firearms in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina? They followed the registration lists, which would not be used for confiscation.

Why then is there a need to have a rifle registration list in New York at all? What other purpose could it serve?

To create such a list requires labor and computer infrastructure costs, as well as long-term costs of maintenance. If there is no purpose, is this not another case of government waste?

Why then was the SAFE Act rushed through in the middle of the night, purposely avoiding public input?

Mr. Cuomo, your prior statements and your actions to date say fears and distrust of you are well founded on this topic.

Craig Robillard, Greece

Facts point to confiscation

Thanks to the authors for what amounts to basically a fair and balanced article in some aspects of the SAFE Act. Whichever side of the debate you are on, realistic facts need to lead the debate.

A far as confiscation goes, the act does indeed give the government expanded powers regarding when they can seize firearms, and what firearms can be seized. The SAFE Act expanded these guidelines. That is a fact.

Additionally, the article touched on the loss of the ability to transfer or hand down these firearms. Once you are gone, the gun must either leave the state of be turned over to the government. That is a fact.

Using a message of necessity to enact a law, that took one year and three months to become effective, and still offers a 30-day grace period, seems to negate that need for such urgency. Was it political posturing? That’s is a fact that will be determined in November.